A couple of ‘compare and contrasts’. The discrepancies between this BBC report on Friday prayers at the Temple Mount/al-Haram al Sharif – and this Jeruslalem Post report.
BBC – Jerusalem prayers pass peacefully
Islamic prayers at Jerusalem’s holiest site ended peacefully on Friday, a week after clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police.
About 3,000 police were deployed around the Old City of East Jerusalem, and men under 50 were barred from entering the Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif.
Jerusalem Post – Muslims clash with police after Salah speech in east J’lem
Dozens of masked Muslim youths and children clashed with security forces and reporters in east Jerusalem’s Wadi Joz on Friday afternoon, throwing rocks, blocking streets and burning garbage bins.
Police dispersed the rioters with stun grenades, tear gas and water hoses.
At least one of the rioters was wounded and three were arrested, Israel Radio reported.
The protesters had been listening to a sermon delivered by Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah at a massive protest rally north of the Old City.
During the sermon, Salah urged supporters to start a third intifada in order to “save al-Aksa Mosque, free Jerusalem and end the occupation.”
He went on to say that Israel’s history was tainted with blood. “They want to build their temple at a time when our blood is on their clothes, on their doorsteps, in their food and in their drinks. Our blood has passed from one ‘General Terrorist’ to another ‘General Terrorist,'” exclaimed the Islamic Movement chief.
It’s true that the trouble was outside the Old City, so the BBC report is not untrue. It’s just our old friend suppressio veri in action. (hat-tip – Biodegradeable, who also notes the contrast between this story and this one)
He’s little known over here, but David Hicks is an Australian held in Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan. The Rottweiler Puppy fisks a somewhat anodyne BBC report which again features supressio veri.
Via commenter pounce, another ‘compare and contrast’.
The BBC and how the US is insensitive towards the needs of children.
Schools shun book over one word
A children’s author has said she is “horrified” after her book was banned from some US schools and libraries. Susan Patron’s award-winning The Higher Power of Lucky has run into trouble because it contains the word “scrotum”.
Patron, a librarian herself, condemned the idea of stopping families choosing reading material for themselves. “I was shocked and horrified to read that some school librarians, teachers, and media specialists are choosing not to include the 2007 Newbery Medal winner in their collections,” she wrote in Publishers Weekly.
Those people were afraid of parental objections or were uncomfortable with the word themselves, she said. “If I were a parent of a middle-grade child, I would want to make decisions about my child’s reading myself. “I’d be appalled that my school librarian had decided to take on the role of censor and deny my child access to a major award-winning book.”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 6375501.stm
The BBC and how the UK is sensitive towards the needs of children.
School bans pigs stories
A West Yorkshire head teacher has banned books containing stories about pigs from the classroom in case they offend Muslim children.
Mrs Harris said in a statement: “Recently I have been aware of an occasion where young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs. “We try to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is offensive.”
This seems to be a standard technique, albeit ‘unwitting and unconscious’. Some stories are ipso facto considered by the BBC to be ‘controversial’ – so opponents are wheeled out to give their views. The Today equivalent would be the ‘many people would argue that …’ or ‘but campaigners are saying …’. Another, ‘non-controversial’ story will beget no negative quotes.
An example – Two stories on immigration and asylum from 2003.
One – the Tory proposal that all immigrants to the UK should be screened for infectious diseases.
Two – an Industrial Society proposal that it should be made easier for asylum seekers to find work in the UK, as they are “skilled, willing and keen to work”.
Both of these stories could be seen as controversial. Pro-refugee and asylum groups would consider the first a disgraceful proposal. Organisations like Migrationwatch or journalists like Anthony Browne would take issue with the second.
But on the BBC, one story is considered so controversial that the reaction to it is played more prominently than the proposal itself. On Radio 4 the story is trailed – “the Conservatives have been defending their proposals”. On the BBC News web page there are four different reactions – all critical. I’m particularly impressed with the way Evan Harris remarks are inserted into a description of the report – as below.
Immigrants would have to pay for the tests and asylum seekers would be detained until it was clear the tests had been met, it said.
” This is an unnecessary, extremist, unethical and unworkable policy ” – Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat health spokesman
The document said more than 50% of TB in the UK now occurs in people born abroad, the majority of whom arrived in Britain within the last 10 years.
The other proposal ? Obviously entirely uncontroversial – no critical voices are present. And no mention of the fact that the report’s author, one Gill Sargeant, is a Labour councillor (in Barnet), nor that the Industrial Society, now rebranded as the Workplace Foundation, is headed up by one Will Hutton, Guardian journalist and New Labour guru.
And finally : 18 Doughty Street have a video interview with Robin Aitken, author of Can We Trust The BBC?.
Funny how many of the big white houses there were in Gaza that I used to pass every other day when driving through Gaza or via the Rafah Border crossing whilst with the MFO…….you know, the ones with the Mercedes etc parked out side. Perhaps the BBC could do a special investigation into the sheer corruption etc that causes most of the problems for the Palestinian people.
(Wake me up when they do)
According to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs chlorine as a chemical weapon has “been banned under numerous international treaties for nearly a century”.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24530_Reuters-_Chemical_Weapon_a_New_Militant_Tactic&only
@dave t
Some time ago I posted a link to an article that talks about the cost of weapons in the “Palestinian” territories and how common they are. Plenty of money for weapons and ammo.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362665,00.html
Prices have gone down and nowadays owning a gun in the Palestinian areas is not anymore the sole privilege of the armed groups.
“You can have the famous Kalashnikov for USD 1,500, and a Chinese-made rifle for USD 1,000. While digging a tunnel in Gaza costs USD 100,000, renting one could climb up to USD 10,000 per a day,” Ashgar says.
In the Gaza Strip, nearly four out of five people are armed, whereas in the West Bank two out of five are armed with different kind of rifles and pistols, according to an officer of the Preventive Security Forces, on condition of anonymity.
Bryan | 22.02.07 – 11:33 am
Do you not pause for one second’s consideration of how inappropriate it is for someone who only made aliyah the day before yesterday to proclaim himself a better and more patriotic Israeli than Yoav Galai • Israel born and bred?
What were you doing while Yoav’s family were building the success story that is Israel? Writing doggerel verse like Giraffe Park? Shilling for the apartheid regime in Pretoria?
Martin is right to point out that the fact that the photographer got to write the captions and choose the pictures completely punctures this particular balloon.
Hat-tip to deegee for having the integrity to publish a reply that countered his own argument. Biodegradable may have a small amount of egg on his face • but many of his criticisms still stand. At least he’s man enough to wipe off the egg and restate the points that remain valid.
Your behaviour however is despicable.
Martin:
Please explain how there are chemical weapons in Iraq when we were told there wern’t,without hiding behind the “45 minute claim” as trotted out but the useful idiots in Al Beeb.
On the front cover of the said document,BTW it says ASSESMENT in the title…..
JohnOfBorg | 22.02.07 – 4:59 pm
John Reith et al: what is the BBC’s definition of poverty, as used here?
The one used by UNCTAD – the UN Conference on Trade & Development.
It’s the one generally used both by governments and NGOs in the international development context.
It’s a measure of absolute rather than relative poverty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2052187.stm
sabra | 22.02.07 – 5:30 pm
I must say I don’t feel that I have any egg on my face to wipe off. I haven’t been able to find the Kahana Chai photo on the photographer’s web site so I don’t know what his original caption was.
Even Andy, the BBC employee, has agreed (in a private capacity) that the addition of the word “goading” was “inappropriate”. Whether the photos and captions were produced by an Israeli, a Japanese or somebody from Kazakhstan of whatever political opinion it is the BBC which is ultimately responsible and so I have limited my criticism to them.
That is why I’m not interested in criticising Yoav Galai or his politics. He is young and English is not his mother tongue so I’m prepared to accept that perhaps his caption writing leaves something to be desired, and it seems to me that any bias in the captions is the responibilty of the BBC, so in that respect i agree with Bryan that any, let’s call it ambiguity or imprecision, in Yoav’s captions suited the BBC’s biased view of Israel.
Its true isn’t it that where there are 2 Jews there are 3 opinions? 😉
John Reith quotes UN statistics from 2002! 😆
It’s a measure of absolute rather than relative poverty.
How do 4 out of 5 people who are living on $2 per day buy Kalashnikovs at bargain basement prices of $1,500 + ammo?
I’d take issue with Aitken about the integrity of his colleagues. There is nothing accidental about BBC bias. It stems from abject sanctimony and contempt for British democracy.
The front page link from http://www.haaretz.com/ to the story I linked to earlier is now this lovely photo with the following caption:
A Palestinian and an ultra-Orthodox Jew sharing a laugh on Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives Thurs. (AP)
BBC propaganda machine, eat your heart out!
biodegradeable – you alledge the BBC presents Kach as mainstream Jweish opinion. The evidence proves it does not. You use one authored article that does not use the word ‘outlawed’, when in every BBC article the fact is made clear, to suggest the same, and thus, the BBC is biased.
Tip: If you want to prove the BBC is biased, use evidence that actually proves the point.
Sorry, if I shound shrill, this does not wind me up and I am hoping to be rational about it. 🙂
General point – when Laban refers to a post made in 2004 that is considered fair, but if His Lordship or I refer to older articles it is not.
Biodegradable: ‘Its like saying that “certain sections of British society would like stricter controls on immigration, just such a group is the BNP.”‘
That is such an unfair representation of this country!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!1
sabra | 22.02.07 – 5:30 pm,
You seem to know more about me than I know about myself. I’ve never spent my time shilling for the apartheid regime in Pretoria. And no, I didn’t make aliyah the day before yesterday.
I don’t know Yoav Galai. Fair enough. But I don’t have a helluvah lot of respect for any Israeli who helps the BBC push its anti-Israel agenda and gets paid for it into the bargain. I wouldn’t work for the BBC if they were offering the last jobs on the planet. However, I concede that I rushed to judgement on the issue. Could be that he simply doesn’t realise how his photos are being used. If that’s the case, it’s time he woke up to the fact.
Hat-tip to deegee for having the integrity to publish a reply that countered his own argument.
Agreed. But since you know so much about me you should have stumbled across the fact that I have given the BBC credit where it’s due a number of times on this blog – even though that counters my own arguments.
You claim that Martin is right to point out that the fact that the photographer got to write the captions and choose the pictures completely punctures this particular balloon.
As biodegradable pointed out – 22.02.07 – 6:07 pm – your argument falls flat. Why is the BBC not choosing photos and captions that show the Israeli perspective?
It’s very bold of you, “Sabra” to hurl unjustified insults at me from the shelter of your anonymity. Maybe you’d like to stop lurking, come out of your shell and reveal a bit about who and what you are. What is your particular claim to fame?
On the subject of the BBC seeing gloating Jews where none exists, here’s a little gem of an example from the anti-Semi…er, I mean anti-Israel Jon Leyne:
Already the outside world seems almost to have lost interest. Many ordinary Israelis are rubbing their hands with glee, though anarchy on their border may not necessarily be something for them to celebrate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6324677.stm
I pointed out at the time in my response to Leyne’s propaganda piece
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117027835900316404/#328842
that If Leyne were a cartoonist he would be churning out sketches of hook-nosed, cigar smoking Jews, with pockets stuffed full of American dollars, ordering the killing of innocent Palestinians.
The BBC should hang its collective head in shame.
Martin Belam
Sorry, but you read too many headlines, not enough substance. The 45 minutes was not linked to sophisiticated weapons. In fact it was a comment that refered to extremely short-range (of the order hundreds or few thousand yards), tactical unconventional weapons. The intelligence on them came from a field commander who said his unit had been issued with some. He might, or might not have been lying or lied to.
The press linked the 45 minutes with a separate mention of the possibility of weapons being developed that could reach Cyprus, the nearest UK government facility.
Andy Tedd
Even those here at BBBC don’t allege that BBC employees are thick, so I can only assume you are being obtuse and disingenuous.
I don’t think I an say it any more simply than Bio, who has made it perfectly plain, but I can say it in a different way.
Biodegradable never said that the BBC’s general portrayal of Kach was as a mainstream group. Your links to articles accurately characterizing them are not only irrelevant to, but obscure the case in point. They fail to illuminate, they only cloud the issue. Was that your intention?
Biodegradable was talking about the captions of those photographs. Seeing them only a tiny proportion of readers would know of Kach, or search for further information. I saw no link to further information on Kach. The information as presented with the photograph was seriously misleading. It implied strongly that Kach was simply a branch of Judaism, as opposed to a tiny, marginalised and criminalised group with insignificant support. It is like calling CIRA or the UDV a “branch of christianity”.
Tip: if you want to defend the BBC against accusations of bias, address the argument actually made, not the straw man you can challenge.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
biodegradeable – you alledge the BBC presents Kach as mainstream Jweish opinion. The evidence proves it does not. You use one authored article that does not use the word ‘outlawed’, when in every BBC article the fact is made clear, to suggest the same, and thus, the BBC is biased.
Andy, for the umpteenth time, I did not use the term “mainstream” to describe Kach neither do I allege that the BBC does so, please read my comments again, I was very careful in my choice of words and am amazed and somewhat frustrated that you still don’t seem to “get it”.
Note that in this comment I quote the BBC as using the term:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#330835
I further clarify here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#330851
and here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#330853
I maintain that the photo feature shows bias here for the imbalance shown in the ratio of Palestinian:Israeli voices:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#330864
General point – when Laban refers to a post made in 2004 that is considered fair, but if His Lordship or I refer to older articles it is not.
You miss the point completely. There is a big difference between describing a group (Kach) as an extremist terrorist organization when reporting massacres commited by its members, and omitting to mention its extremism when reporting the Temple Mount in an attempt to make it appear that its views are shared by more than a tiny, fringe minority. I think that much should be obvious.
Thank you Richard, perhaps Andy will understand you, even if he fails to understand me.
:+:
I would like to add a comment to Richards point regarding WMD and Iraq…..
It was the Daily Mail that made the “45 minute” the heart of it “pro-war” spin,that the fact wasn’t “true” (as indeed it would be as BOTH dossiers were intelligence assessments)they missed the main thrust of what the intelligence community was actually saying- that Saddam continue to develop R & D and held on to the capital assests (scientists,equipment,etc) to re-start the programmes in full after sanctions had collapes (which was effective after 1999).
So the question is,why hold on to the “stockpiles”,when it is easier to retain the knowledge/structures for production later?
As has already been pointed out,most of the raw materials for CW/BW are comercially avalible (Phosgen and Chlorine,both ingrediants for making Mustard Gas and other chocking agents, are very easy to get hold of)
The simple answer is we still don’t know because of the thousands of missing documents,equipment and hundreds of missing personel that are linked to these programmes.
We don’t even know how many conventional arms Iraq had,let alone the “Crown Jewels” of Iraq’s defence capability.
Here is a section of the “minority reportshypothosis” strait from the Iraqi Survey Group:
“If WMD existed, Saddam may have opted not to use it for larger strategic or political reasons, because he did not think Coalition military action would unseat him.If he used WMD, Saddam would have shown that he had been lying all along to the international community and would lose whatever residual political support he might have retained in the UNSC. From the standpoint of Regime survival, once he used WMD against Coalition forces, he would foreclose the chance to outlast an occupation. Based on his experience with past coalition attacks, Saddam actually had more options by not using WMD, and if those failed, WMD always remained as the final alternative. Although the Iraqi Government might be threatened by a Coalition attack, Saddam—the ultimate survivor—believed if he could hold out long enough, he could create political and strategic opportunities for international sympathy and regional support to blunt an invasion.
Asked by a US interviewer in 2004, why he had not used WMD against the Coalition during Desert Storm, Saddam replied, “Do you think we are mad? What would the world have thought of us? We would have completely discredited those who had supported us.”
Iraqi use of WMD would deeply embarrass France and Russia, whom has cultivated Iraq.
Use of WMD during Operation Iraqi Freedom would serve to justify US and UK prewar claims about Iraq’s illegal weapons capabilities. Such a justification would also serve to add resolve to those managing the occupation”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm
It appears in hindsight that Saddam and the Baathists were prepared for asymetric warfare BEFORE the invasion,and as the conflict has gone on (and gained it’s own momentum with the Shia being armed by Iran) that the “assests” placed by Saddam are now being used to full effect,as seen in Anbar province in the last month……….
Its a shame that nobody in the DoD/MoD seemed to be alive to the possibility of unconventional warfare in Iraq before the war started.
BTW: Where have Al Beeb put Mark Urban….he was the only “Defence expert” worth listening too?
Bryan + Sabra
Thanks to Laban, I know know what a tin foil hat is – a new one for me.
But please will somebody explain
what is alyah?
how do you make it?
where is Giraffe Park? (surely no giraffes in Israel? Pretoria?)
do poets recite there?
Isn’t the best explanation for why the captions didn’t explain who the KC extremist group were is that the captions were written by an Israeli (who knew, and just assumed everyone else would know too)?
“Which is exactly what the BBC has done by talking about Kahana Chai as if it represented a large number of Israeli Jews,”
I dunno, maybe I am being disengenous, but I can only read what you type. Perhaps you didnt mean to type this, or perhaps I ‘just dont get it’ 🙂
My take on this is that in order to prove bias, rather than one instance*, the entire body or work must be considered. So, for the BBC to talk “about Kahana Chai as if it represented a large number of Israeli Jews” you would expect to see repeated references to it in a number of articles over time.
Yet, when we look at over time, the BBC accurately refers to Kach as a outlawed, banned, minority organisation. The reference in this piece although omitting the description ‘banned’ does actually contrast Kahana Chai with mainstream Jewish opinion. The structure of the piece is quite clear.
The author of the piece has written to the board explaining their reasoning, and it does not strike me as a biased or anti-Israeli point of view. Or anyone else here either.
Sorry to be boring. But overall, how do you feel about that photostory now?
*I accept there are exceptions to this eg Barbara Plett’s FOOC piece
…….also could someone also explain why Kahane Chai (a banned terrorist group) were able to pose for photographs near the Temple Mount?
Did no-one call the police?
Now the photographer has taken their pictures, it should be easy to track them down. Have they been arrested?
According to the Council on Foreign Relations website Kahane Chai is listed by the US State Dept as a terrorist group – and has a track record of terrorism at ‘ a sensitive religious site’.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9178/
maybe the bbc’s Israeli photographer has headed off a massacre……
Slightly Baffled
“But please will somebody explain
what is alyah?
how do you make it?”
Making Aliyah is the term used when Jews of the Diaspora (the Jewish community scattered around the world) decide to relocate to their ancient homeland in Israel.
(Aliyah means “going up” in Hebrew, or something very like it. In the Bible, people always “go up” to Jerusalem.)
I hope that means you’ll be Slightly Less Baffled from now on!
Andy
One instance of bias is one piece of evidence. Most BBC employees don’t admit to bias, probably genuinely don’t know they are biased (read extracts of Aitken’s book, and watch the 18 Doughty St clip). Bias cannot be proved in one argument therefore.
This weblog documents BBC bias case by case. If there was not a flow of cases, and they were not a coherent set, showing overwhelming majority of bias for one side in each debate, then this site would not be able to prove bias.
This is one case of bias. No-one ever said that the BBC’s position on Kahana Chai showed showed them as anything other than extremists (although if they frequently called them terrorists, rather than militants, that would show bias). That would actually alleviate some bias, although still show poor judgement, if they were apologists for Jewish as well as Palestinian terrorists.
The argument was that this set of photographs, with its captions, showed bias.
Whatever the photographer’s comments, the story has been shown to have bias, his words do not change the item presented. The BBC editors cannot be excused for simply accepting most of his wording, expecially as they changed one of his captions. He is from a different culture, among people who would know what the Kahana Chai are.
Of course the caption change was a change from suggesting perfectly normal relationship between the Palestinians and the Jew in the photograph, such that he felt free to be light-hearted around them, to suggesting he was trying to goad them. It is OK to increase bias, but not to be wary of bias.
Richard | 23.02.07 – 11:25 am
I don’t see how this instance shows bias at all.
Yes – it would have been more informative if Kahane Chai had been identified as a banned terrorist group.
But as Andy has said ’til he is blue in the face – whenever BBC journalists write about Kahane Chai, they spell this out.
There was no attempt to portray Kahane Chai as ‘mainstream’ in this essay. Indeed, as Andy has also pointed out – they were contrasted with the mainstream.
I can only speculate, but it seems likely to me that the picture editor supervising this piece had never heard of Kahane Chai (like 99% of people). He may have asked the photographer ‘Who are these Kahane Chai guys?’ and got the answer ‘they’re an extreme religious group” and left it at that.
The real mistake by the BBC here isn’t ‘bias’, it’s missing a good story.
Assorted types having a day out at the Temple Mount is just soft colour stuff.
The fact that an internationally listed terrorist group were able to penetrate the Temple Mount at a time of heightened intercommunal tension would have been hard News.
If Islamic Jihad had got past Israeli security and the BBC hadn’t mentioned it, then this blog would have claimed that as an instance of anti-Israel bias.
Here we have an Israeli terrorist group getting past Israeli security and the BBC’s failure to mention it is also being cited as an instance of anti-Israel bias!
What’s more – if the BBC had picked up on it and asked tough questions about whether the Israeli security forces were asleep on the job, that would on doubt have been listed as an instance of bias too.
Yes, Richard I understand what the blog does. The other side of the picture is the unbiased material that relates to the same issues.
I dont expect to change poster’s opinions, but merely to highlight the cases where the beeb got it right for the benefit of the may lurkers I suspect this board has.
The site attempts to build up a picture of bias by saying here is eg a story where the BBC sort of implied Kach were representative of lalala. By not also saying, ah but in these other articles (in fact ALL of them that mention Kach) they were accurate, the site is not painting a fair picture.
Of course, at least the site is pretty clear about what you are going to get when you logon 🙂
But if you only consider the output where there is ambiguity or error, then it is very easy to misrepresent the whole.
What percentage of the whole (ie the total number of stories output by the BBC daily) are the items listed here?
Martin might be able to come up with a crude answer, and you could argue that even 0.00000000001% is too much, but I wonder if the number posted here is a statistically significant one?
(Aitken’s story is 1 in 28,000. I know the Doughty thing is an interview, but where was the other side of the story in that? I guess Doughty is clear about its proprietary agenda, so not much point moaning about it)
Regarding any accurate reporting on Isreal in general:
I think you’ll find that such “reports” are usually woefully short of factual information anyway,but plenty of pull on the emotional heartstrings……
Al Beeb can’t even acknowledge the fact that “Palistinians” have been at war with themselves since 1967,which has led to the creation of such “humane” groups such as Black September, ANO, PLPF, or that the “cause” has done more to undermine the region with the fracticide that is the symptom of there hunger for revenge (re:Lebanon in 1976 and 1982, Jordan from the 1970’s to present) than even the most robust reponse from Isreal.
23.6 percent of Isreals population is “Arab Isreali”,and find it within themselves to live along side the Jewish brothers and sisters,dispite the efforts of groups like Kesh,yet time and time again we “glorify” and “excuse” those who have turned there backs on peaceful co-exsistance and followed firstly the secular terrorist Arafat
then this new, dangerous ideaology of returning to the 9th centuary to a mythical “golden age”…..
Apologist like Blair and the Al Beeb cheerleaders, by ignoring the hard facts of demographics,economics (funny how Saudi and the Gulf States trade with Isreal),culture and religion (as with Iraq) THEY ADD to the flames of hate by there pompous “We know best” White City World view…..
“Socalisim” is indeed necrotizing.
Andy Tedd & John Reith
The bias as I see it in the photo set is not solely in the photo caption of Kach. I have also pointed out until I’m blue in the face the imbalance in quantity and quality of Palestinan voices to Israeli voices; moaning, hard-done-by Arabs versus hard right racist Jews is what comes across.
John – if you read the caption again and the photographer’s reply to deegee you’ll see that the Kach photo was not even shot on the Temple Mount; a very good reason all by itself for that image to not have been included.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/middle_east_jerusalem0s_temple_mount_or_haram_al_sharif_/html/4.stm
Some branches of Judaism advocate the immediate takeover of the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple.
Just such a group is the right-wing religious Kahana Chai movement. Members of the group dance in the archaeological garden to the south of the compound.
Mainstream Jewish opinion is that Jews are not allowed onto the temple mount until the Messiah comes.
Regarding that last paragraph, see my previous comments and links that should dispel that myth.
eg: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#330960
Sorry folks, my mischievous inclusion of the words 45 minutes obviously detracted from the point I was trying to make.
My point was that having some chlorine in a country is perfectly OK. Having some chlorine transported around the country in chemical container lorries is also fair use. Blowing up a chemical container lorry full of chlorine is cleary terrorism and not legit in my book.
However, the fact that “insurgents”/”militants”/”terrorists”/”the new world order secret planners” (delete according to your choice of words and conspiracy theory habits of choice) are now doing that doesn’t, IMHO, in any way have much bearing on whether there were or were not WMDs in Iraq before the invasion. And therfore whether the administrations in the USA and UK lied / exagerated / erred on the side of caution / were spot on (again, delete as you feel appropriate) in their assessment prior to the war.
I should add I am aware that the status of the chlorine plant at Fallujah featured in the run-up to war , but I am assuming it isn’t currently under terrorist control and that in this incident the lorry that was targeted was carrying it around as part of legitimate civilian business
>> “What percentage of the whole (ie the total number of stories output by the BBC daily) are the items listed here?
Martin might be able to come up with a crude answer”
I’ll assume you meant a crude answer for the figures, as I do generally keep civil on here.
I actually really couldn’t tell you how many articles were published daily. The filenames imply that there have been over 6.5 million articles on the news site since it started in 1997, but I don’t think they started at 0000000.stm, and it has clearly grown bigger over the years so must publish more than it did back then.
That number also includes all the sport content and various other bits of the site that use the News CPS.
Sorry, not much help
Ingsoc is doublethink:
“I think you’ll find that such “reports” are usually woefully short of factual information anyway,”
It’s no secret that this specific point has been recognised and last year 5000 journalists underwent compulsory training to ensure they knew eg the demographic information you refer to later in your post.
Frankly Baffled | 23.02.07 – 10:39 am,
Frankly, I’m also baffled. South Africa is full of Giraffes, particularly the Kruger National Park. I dunno about Pretoria, specifically.
Isn’t the best explanation for why the captions didn’t explain who the KC extremist group were is that the captions were written by an Israeli (who knew, and just assumed everyone else would know too)?
Could be. Except that he must know what kind of photographs and captions will tickle the BBC’s fancy.
I see that John Reith and Andy Tedd are continuing to flog their dead horse. That critter just ain’t goin’ to be pullin’ no more carts.
5000 journalists underwent compulsory training to ensure they knew eg the demographic information you refer to later in your post.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 1:13 pm
Must have been after the Lebanon war. Who was doing the training and who designed the course/s?
Inquiring minds want to know.
John Reith
It shows bias because Kahane Chai is not just “a branch of judaism”, it is a terrorist organisation that Israel has banned. There is a strong implicaton that Kahane Chai is a normal Jewish sect.
No-one said they were called mainstream. Wikipedia has a good section on logical fallacies; look up the straw man, but don’t use it!
However, as I said, to call the UVA a “branch of christianity” would rightly be called lunacy, despite their basis in the religious belief, based on christianity without the papacy. To call Kahane Chai a “branch of judaism” without further explanation.
If the editor has not heard of the Kahane Chai then, in order to take responsibility, then surely he should find out at least vaguely who they are.
Andy
The “unbiased material” is not the other side of the picture. For a start all material should show little or no bias. Unbiased material does not make up for bias, nor make an excuse for it. The point of this site is not only to show bias, but to show systematic bias, consistent in supporting one side of an argument more often than the other. If you could show examples of bias the other way then you could challenge that case, but only to move the debate onto poor judgement.
It doesn’t matter what the other articles say about Kahane Chai. They are not refered to in the pictures. I am not sure how you can fail to understand this point when it has been made so many times in so many ways, but we are not talking about the BBC’s representation of Kahane Chai.
We are talking about their representation of Israeli Jews. The BBC say that a group strongly implied to be an accepted part of Israeli judaism (“…right-wing religious Kahana Chai movement…” sounds similar to the American “Christian Right”, doesn’t it? OK, so the BBC prefer many terrorist organisations to them, but that is not the point) want to rebuilt the temple on Temple Mount. There is no context given of this being an extremist group, therefore likely to have opinions that are considered abhorent by most Israeli Jews.
The articles you link to have no bearing because people who read the caption are extremely unlikely to have read the articles. the information in the articles is not common knowledge that can be assumed among BBC website readers. Therefore they are not connected, and you are using them as a smokescreen!
Aitken’s story is not 1 in 28,000. It is one of several in 28,000, and even there the majority of the 28,000 are either not in a position to see the type of incidents he tells about, do not have the prominence or the writing skills to make them known or just do not care, do the job and go home. There have been several others who have told about the bias, even Rod Liddle who was himself rather left-wing noticed it. The fact that most people in the BBC agree with the bias and are too uncritical of their own opinions to notice it is in fact the entire source of the bias, so one would not expect most of them to notice, or if they did not to complain. Half the point is that the emplyees don’t see anything wrong in the bias!
Your point about the political viewpoint of 18 Doughty Street is very useful. We know about the bias there. It is run by, amongst others, a former Conservative candidate who is a writer from a distinctly moderatate-right-wing viewpoint (who must confuse the BBC no end!). However we don’t have to pay for his broadcasts or risk imprisonment, and he doesn’t try to tell us he is unbiased. The BBC broadcasts from a distinctly left-wing viewpoint, yet we do pay tax to them, and they do claim to be unbiased.
That this is one of many articles is irrelevant. Only the open bias that happens to be noticed by a contributor ever gets on here, and this is one of many cases mentioned. The rest of the BBC is institutionally, casually left-wing, affecting the slant of most of the news and current affairs, all the topical comedy and many dramas but not in a way that can always be pinned down. Many of the cases are not, of themselves, unfair bias, they are just never balanced by drama or comedy from a right-of-centre viewpoint.
None of that can easily be proved; I can accept that the casual bias can be argued against. However this site has many, many cases of left-wing bias that are stark, and there are many. Most of them even John Reith, that arch defender of the BBC will not defend. He cherry picks a few comments, ignoring many specifically directed at him. Even then his case is often very weak.
What no-one has ever found, is any realistic suggestion of right-wing bias. With so many people looking to challenge our case (here and elsewhere) I wonder why not?
Chaps and Chapesses – we do make a difference!
“Nil carborundum illegitimis”
(Don’t let the bastards grind you down)
Martin
Indeed chlorine is a legitimate chemical for civil purposes. However it is also a precursor for chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein had the capability to make, thanks to the Germans.
I supported the war on the back of the case that Saddam was deliberately starving his people and witholding medical care for propoganda, that sanctions could not hold for much longer without French and Russian support and that if they fell apart then he would be able to develop as a threat to Israel, due to his WMD programmes, aided by France, Germany, Russia and China. My argument, not related to extant WMDs, is on record on a site I posted to a lot in 2002. So I am not making any excuses by the following. It is something I came across after the war started, after a former friend had died there.
The presence or absence of WMDs in Iraq was irrelevant. Sounds ridiculous given the arguments, but what was Iraq’s use of WMDs, compared with that of NATO’s nuclear forces in the late 1970s onward?
NATO had a strategic nuclear deterent. It had to be known about, it had to be a present, credible threat to work. It was to prevent war, if it worked it was never to be used. Therefore stockpiles of nuclear weapons were an essential part of the strategy.
Iraq used tactical chemical weapons. they made them to use them, and on the battlefield not against strategic targets. They were not openly acknowledged if it could be helped. There was no need to keep stockpiles. What Iraq needed was to be able to develop and have the capacity to manufacture chemical weapons, and eventually a variety of NBC weapons. They could make chemical weapons, and if it was up to france they would have made nuclear weapons. Thanks to Israel they couldn’t!
Richard – I am glad that you at least acknowledge that you state subjective opinion as if it were fact.
But you could prove it – let a panel of experts decide if the selected articles are biased or unbiased or a matter of simple error, then divide that by the total number of articles output in the same period.
A statistician will then be able to determine if the number is statistically significant.
The difficulty would be balancing that against the claims of right wing bias. Here is an example:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050121_BBC_Iran_Propaganda.php
and another:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050510_ambushing_dissent.php
and another:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050524_bbc_still_ignoring_evidence.php
etc etc etc
(Please note I am not an advocate of the ‘we piss off both sides equally therefore we are impartial’ argument. Merely that if there are under attack from both left and right, then any bias is at least not ‘systemic’.)
Richard,
here is a good example of what I am talking about:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article715471.ece
In the headline Walker makes a joke of the report’s findings and the has a go at persuading the reader otherwise. But while Walker’s evidence is qualitative, the evidence used by the analysts working for the governors was quantitative.
The illogic runs like this – ‘1. This report is a joke because off the top of my head I can think of some examples where the reporting was problematic. 2. The people creating the report actually counted the ‘column inches’ on each side and concluded the opposite? 3. Oh. 4. OK, I admit the beeb does a pretty good job really…’
This blog is exactly like that article, except without steps 2, 3 and 4. 🙂
Hi Richard, I’ve no doubt that you supported the war for the well-reasoned argument you presented there. Sadly, I don’t think the majority of people in the UK formed an opinion on the issue based on a real understanding of it – and for that the media, in which I include the BBC, were to blame.
I see I got accused earlier of only reading headlines and not enough substance – my apologies for that, I also have to earn a living – but I think the British media did a lot of the job of convincing the UK that the regime in Iraq was a clear and present danger to the UK, rather than politicians having to make the argument themselves.
And I always come back to the fact that if starving your people and being an oppresive regime are a legitimate causus belli for the UK, how the hell is it that our government does nothing about the shameful situation that has been allowed to develop in Zimbabwe?
But I guess that is a whole other debate for another day
Andy Tedd,
The BBC is not under attack from both the left and the right. It is under attack from the centre-right incessantly and from the far, far lunatic left infrequently.
And the bias is indeed systemic. But I think there is also little doubt that the widespread opposition to BBC bias by omission and distortion of facts is having an effect. Journalists generally do not like to be thought of as biased, especially since their job often requires them to be impartial or at least to make a professional showing of being impartial.
So if the opposition at least makes BBC hacks think twice about the latest bit of propaganda about to flow from their keyboards, it will have provided an invaluable service.
Bryan
It was delivered prior to the Israeli general election last year. It was an online course.
It tested what a BBC panel of Middle East experts considered a core set of facts – dates eg Balfour declaration, wordings eg 242 demographics eg the makeup of the Israeli and Palestinian populations, number of settlers and so on – and contained the full version of the Balen guide (a subset of which can be found here http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm)(I have no idea why only a subset of the material is on bbc.co.uk, the beeb could be yet more open in general IMO)
There were a couple of scenarios were journalists had to balance an interview panel, pick the best headline as a breaking news story unfolds etc.
I cant find much about it online to link to – although I am sure it was featured in Ariel (I thought Ariel was supposed to be available on bbc.co.uk these days, but it appears they have yet to get round it), so is not a secret.
(although if I suddenly stop posting, it probably was 🙂 )
I am sure you will have problems with the way the course has come about, or could make some pithy unsubstantiated remark about it not achieving anything – but you could look at it as deep committment to ensuring the factual accuracy of stories pertaining to Isreal and the Palestinians. Just a thought…
Richard | 23.02.07 – 1:25 pm |
What no-one has ever found, is any realistic suggestion of right-wing bias. With so many people looking to challenge our case (here and elsewhere) I wonder why not?
And there Beeboids is the rub. A broadcaster that shows equal right/left bias in its output is preferable to one that shows bias from one side only. I would not expect any broadcaster to be perfectly balanced, that’s just too artificial, but a reasonable stab at it would be nice.
So a challange to Andy and Mr Rieth. Can you point to a right wing character in any of the BBC’s comedy or drama programmes that is sympathetic, i.e a nice chap?
Bryan – can I just be clear?
You consider medialens to be “far, far lunatic left”
Fat Contoller I will answer your question when people accept that the BBC is under attack from the left. All you have to do is click on the links I’ve provided.
Mr Todd
| 23.02.07 – 2:50 pm |
Oh I do accept that the Communist Party think the BBC is right wing. Of course they do.
And it’s ‘Contractor’ – nobody would be foolish enough to let me control anything!
Martin,
Personally I was put on a Saddam death list (I saw the list, the Iraqi secret service had the arrogance to send us the list!).
Why? For being a member of a student union executive in 1985 supporting Iraqi dissidents (when our government and the US were supporting Saddam because he was the enemy of Iran).
In fact as far as I know I was never removed from said list so I was pretty pleased he and his regime were removed, end of.
I’m not certain lots of others have such direct reasons to support or oppose the Iraq war but I am just making the point that it was a lot more complicated than the media would have you believe.
I would also add that re Zimbabwe et al that Iraq had one special characteristic in addition to being a foul tyranny that starved its people – Saddam’s Iraq invaded its neighbours, twice, losing both times after much loss of life and destruction of material.
Given half a chance he would have liked to have attacked again.
That at least was probably unique.
I struggle to see anything that could be considered leftwing about Top Gear, in fact it is gloriously politically incorrect – but that isnt strictly what you asked.
So DI Gene Hunt in Life on Mars.
And how about The Gathering Storm? 🙂
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Your link to “the Balen guide” merely shows that bias against Israel is indeed official at the BBC.
Take for example what it says about “PALESTINIAN LAND” and “PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm#palestinian%20land
Or “OCCUPIED TERRITORIES/OCCUPATION”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm#occupied
Now compare with this:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED%20TERRITORIES-%20Forgotten%20Facts%20About%20the%20We
Disputed, not “Occupied”, Territory
The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.
As to “PALESTINE”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm#palestine
Here is a reply to a pro-Palestine moonbat, not written by me:
You are fundamentally wrong about the mythical people you call Palestinians. If you think you are right answer the following questions about the make-believe land of Palestine:
When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
What was its form of government?
Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
What was the language of the country of Palestine?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What was the name of its currency?
Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.
And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
If you are lamenting the low sinking of a once proud nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that nation proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call Palestinians are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day Palestinians to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy.
For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it the Palestinian people and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the West Bank and Gaza, respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut and California with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called Palestinians have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel’s ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again, was its beginning?
I’d like to see the BBC answering some of those questions instead of constantly furthering the Arab agenda.